I believe Bishop Jugis's endorsement of Amendment One violates the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae...

...Thus, with all due respect to my bishop, I dissent. I will vote against Amendment One.

Read David Wharton's essay on Amendment One here.

Strong stuff.

Comments

[Sean]

as we speak, guarino is narcing david to the roman guard.

[Spag]

David's interpretation of "equality under the law" must necessarily then extend to all marriages- incestuous, polygamist, etc. because there is no reference as to why same-sex marriages are entitled to "equality" while others are not.

Further, we aren't talking about religious recognition of same-sex marriages, only state recognition. It is NOT a crime for two people of the same-sex to get married in North Carolina, it is simply unrecognized by the state and is a LEGAL nullity. The Church can view it however they wish.

But if we are clamoring for state recognition on the basis of "equality", what makes one form of marriage less entitled to equality than another once we get beyond one man/one woman ?

This is where logic leads us, but it is clear that many commenters on this blog- including the host himself- are no fans of Socrates.

Why invoke logic when you can win an argument with "just because"?

[Sean]

holy shit you are annoying.

[designation]

Calm down, Sean.

Bigots need love too.

It takes a lot of energy to excuse the denial of civil rights in such an unceasing manner.

[Sean]

haha. i'm very calm. it just amazes me the vicissitudinous of sam on this issue. someone presents their opposition due to morals, not interested; lawyers present their opposition based on language, not legit; david presents his opinion based on a deep review of his personal & religious beliefs, including dissecting religious doctrine to help inform his decision, not good enough... and hey, let's set up a strawman re: the law vs. religion while we're at it to dissolve david's position.

[John Howard Ferguson]

\\\"no reference as to why same-sex marriages are entitled to \\\"equality\\\" while others are not.\\\" -- Sam

It is not \\\"marriages\\\" that are entitled to equality, it is people. Currently, some consenting adults are allowed to marry another consenting adult of their choosing who is not a close relative while other consenting adults are NOT allowed to marry another consenting adult of their choosing who is not a close relative, the difference being the genders of the people.

The distinction is based solely on the genders of the people involved and you have yet to make an argument, cogent or otherwise, despite the degree to which you seem impressed with yourself, why that discrimination is valid much less why the North Carolina Constitution should be modified to enshrine that discrimination in the highest of our laws.

Local stalwart conservative Charles Davenport Jr. admits it is discrimination, even celebrates it. Confront the discrimination, Sam, and justify it for us: some adults can marry a single partner of their choosing while others, depending on their genders, cannot. Don\\\'t tell us the other ways in which people are treated the same, please; that anybody can marry a person of the opposite gender. We know they ways they are treated the same. Tell us what justifies the way in which they are treated differently. What legally justifies that different legal treatment of couples based on their genders? That discrimination? Do you have an argument that takes that head on and doesn\\\'t try to dance away from the inescapable bottom line that what you are defending is unequal treatment of people?

(Also glaringly absent from your \\\"defense\\\" of this horrible amendment is a justification for its prohibition of civil unions for opposite sex couples, but first things first.)

[David Wharton]

Sam -- as to incest marriage, de minimis non curat lex. That is, it's never likely ever to come before the courts as a religious freedom issue, because I can't imagine that any legitimate religious organization would bless it. As to polygamy, I've said before that as a civil liberties issue, the state should stay out of it. And that appears to be the legal strategy in the U.S., where polygamy per se is ignored, and prosecutions are pursued only in cases of suspected child- or spousal abuse.

Sean, just FYI, last I heard, Joe Guarino is an ex-Catholic Evangelical Protestant.

[Bill Yaner]

Not Socrates, Spag, but rather Cicero from whom we derived our whole concept of "public right".

His letters would have ripped the Ammendment Oner's to shreds.

[Account Deleted]

"some adults can marry a single partner of their choosing while others, depending on their genders, cannot."

Ah, you injected the word "single" into the equation. Upon what do you base that ? That isn't the present state of Constitutional law.

"Currently, some consenting adults are allowed to marry another consenting adult of their choosing who is not a close relative while other consenting adults are NOT allowed to marry another consenting adult of their choosing who is not a close relative, the difference being the genders of the people."

The history of one man/one woman (i.e., "gender differences") is the only fundamental marriage right recognized by the Supreme Court. That's not my law, that is THE law. The Court deems it a fundamental right because that relationship is "deeply rooted in tradition". Not just ANY one on one relationship, but that one. As I have written before, there is a greater tradition of polygamist marriages than same-sex marriage. So how could a court recognize a right to the latter but not the former under current jurisprudence ?

"you have yet to make an argument, cogent or otherwise, despite the degree to which you seem impressed with yourself, why that discrimination is valid much less why the North Carolina Constitution should be modified to enshrine that discrimination in the highest of our laws."

I only explained why the current state of Constitutional law makes the distinction that would allow such discrimination.

I also don't understand why you are calling on me to make an argument in favor of changing the NC Constitution as if I have somehow been implying it should be changed without offering a supporting argument. I have simply pointed out the logical conclusion that results from some other arguments being advanced.

Too many of you are wrapped up in "just because" that any valid criticism or questions are simply dismissed. You either accept or the bullshit arguments without question or you are a bigot. The conflation going on is extraordinary. I could still vote against Amendment One for any number of reasons, but it won't be because I fear being called a bigot or subscribe to extremely weak legal arguments.

David, if the state should stay out of polygamy, shouldn't they also stay out of same-sex marriage? This whole debate is about nothing more than state recognition of certain marriages. As stated before, a religion can recognize any type of marriage that it wants to.

You offer a religious basis for state recognized equality- but why stop at same-sex marriage? Nobody seems to be able to answer that. Instead all I get is a torrent of name calling and non-responsive jibberish from certain quarters for daring to question the legal and logical foundation of arguments. One would expect a legal and logical response. Wishful thinking I suppose. And I'm not referring to you, David.

[sean coon]

"Why stop at same-sex marriage?"

Because that's the issue at hand. Jesus, man, the very thing you hold against people doing in this debate -- projecting down the road legal ramifications onto the issue -- is exactly what you are doing yourself.

@David - I almost spit out my nose.

[David Wharton]

Sam: "if the state should stay out of polygamy, shouldn't they also stay out of same-sex marriage?" Yeah, probably, although that has a lot of difficult practical consequences, too, and has zero chance of ever actually happening. So we're left to deal with the law trying to encode cultural/religious norms, which is an inherently messy business that will always have ragged edges. Your quest for perfect consistency on marriage law for that reason must fail; as a family lawyer, you must be familiar with all the inconsistencies and injustices in the current configuration of family law, even leaving same-sex marriage aside.

FWIW, years ago I had an email debate on this topic with Andrew Sullivan, in which I took your position, Sam. Since then, (here ya go, Bill Yaner) I've changed my mind.

[Account Deleted]

David, you must also be on Sean's list now for having lent any credence to my "nose spitting" argument even if you no longer believe it outweighs the present concern.

Sean, you can throw out all of the venom you want. You have demonstrated time and again that you aren't that intelligent, hence your substitution of blustery for reasoned discourse. It may not be your fault, but it is what it is. I shall henceforth ignore you and anyone like you. You add nothing of substance to the conversation.

[Thomas]

Speaking of logic, Ed pointed to this the other day.

[sean coon]

No, you're not haughty at all, spag. For the record (I know you're all about record keeping), I laughed at David's sidebar to me. Man, you really do have issues.

[John Howard Ferguson]

"I also don't understand why you are calling on me to make an argument in favor of changing the NC Constitution as if I have somehow been implying it should be changed without offering a supporting argument." -- Sam

What I'm asking of you is, in light of you saying probably vote to change the constitution, what justifies enshrining the denial of couples of the same gender the same rights as people of opposite genders into the highest of our state laws?

[John Howard Ferguson]

Typo. Should have been: "In light of you saying you to change the constitution...

[John Howard Ferguson]

Sorry, don't know what's going on with the hyperlink. "In light of you saying you will probably vote to change the constitution."

[bubba]

"holy shit you are annoying.'

In your case, mission accomplished.

[Sean]

i see that the "Get Off My Damn Lawn" meeting has let out. welcome, bubba!

[John Howard Furguson]

I'll bet Sam doesn't answer my question now that we've stripped away the rhetoric and semantics and cut to the chase. Anybody want to bet me, huh?

What is the justification for treating same-sex couples differently under the law than opposite-sex couples?

[Account Deleted]

I'll answer that. Because there is only a Constitutional right to marriage between one man and one woman. See Loving v. Virginia. The law treats unmarried people differently than married people in many instances, same-sex or not. What is the justification for treating opposite sex polygamists different than other couples, including same-sex couples married in states that allow it?

Should unmarried people be treated the same as married people? If so, then perhaps we need to eliminate marriage altogether, right? And if we are going to keep marriage but expand it to include other relationships, then there is no reason to limit marriage to two people is there?

I think society needs to answer those questions before we start changing things.

[John Howard Furguson]

Ah. It is justified to deny same-sex couples the right to get married because they are single and they cannot have the rights of married people while they are single.

I think when your arguments become that absurd, it's time to concede.

[sean coon]

If you were to trot out such an argument in court, spag, the judge would label *you* dramatic and laugh you out of the courtroom.

[Account Deleted]

"Ah. It is justified to deny same-sex couples the right to get married because they are single and they cannot have the rights of married people while they are single."

That isn't my argument, but if you want to dumb it down to make yourself feel better then go for it. Your response indicates to me that like Sean, you aren't equipped intellectually to actually have an intelligent discussion on the matter.

Noteworthy that bet I wouldn't answer your questions, when in fact you didn't answer mine. I assume that's because you don't like the inevitable answer or simply don't have one.

[cheripickr]

It must be tough being Spag.